So.....art photography

I see very little mention of art photography and photographers on these forums. I'll admit, I don't visit much, but I can't recall a mention related to photo history. Is art photography that separate from commercial photography? Do many people on these forums know who Gursky, Sherman, and Crewdson are? Or am I just totally off base here?

It just seems like different worlds sometimes. Im working on my BFA in photography at a fairly respected school (not RISD or Yale or anything) and we have 1 digital photography class. The rest are film-based. The difference in attitudes is just striking sometimes, and what a good image is seems incredibly different.

Certainly I'm not trying to imply that art has no place in commercial photography (and vice versa). I guess that, in general, the two seem to be far more segregated than I would expect them to be. For instance, it seems like commercial photography is founded on fairly strict rules about exposure and composition. Art seems to be free of such strict limitations and encourages experimentation.

"Art photography" is a rather broad topic, seeing as photography is an art. Is it different than commercial photography? Well, commercial photography is also a very broad concept. What are your definitions of each?

This is just a generality so excuse me if things seem simplistic. I would start by saying commercial photography is for a client, so the client has input in what the photographer is taking photos of/and how. Automatically, I would say, that makes it different than photos taken purely for the artist's fancy. So that is the difference?

In terms of exposure and composition I would say everything is relevant to the project. For something to be art it doesn't have to be differently exposed or composed than any other photo. Commercial work depends on the client - there is no "commercial photography" preset on a camera or editing program because every project/advert/company is different.

I would say the world overlap far more than most people think. To me there is a very very very fine line between a talented commercial photographer and a talented fine art photographer. To me the main difference, like DK said is that a fine art photographer is always shooting for yourself with your own concepts and your own timeline. Where as a a talented and respected commercial photographer is photographing for themselves (yes shooting for a client can still be shooting for yourself as long as they are hiring you for your vision), but with a concept pitched to them and on a specific timeline. In reality respected commercial photographers do come up with the concepts and make all the final decisions.

Both worlds have their own bad attitudes towards the other and it bothers the **** out of me. The fine art world sees the commercial world as mindless drones who are slaves to the man; the commercial world sees the fine art world as a bunch of photographers creating work for photographers or sees them as a group of people with their heads up their own *****. I think photography is photography and if you love it you should be able to appreciate it from all aspects. Maybe I am being somewhat pessimistic right now but its because I am in a situation where these poor attitudes thrive.

Honestly it doesnt matter what you call yourself what matters is striving for a personal vision and forcing yourself to be the best most creative photographer you can. talent is talent no matter what words come after your name.

Is art photography that separate from commercial photography? Do many people on these forums know who Gursky, Sherman, and Crewdson are? Or am I just totally off base here?

I would argue that the photographers you have cited to test if we are "art-literate" are commercial rather than 'artistic'. Sherman and Gursky's latest photographs, both of which sold for enormous amounts of money, are conceptually trivial in comparison with their younger, more vibrant work. This seems to be a common part of the cyclic nature of artists... but on the other hand, I guess we should admit that it's hard to tell a works' true value from anything other than an elevated historical context.

Quote:

I guess that, in general, the two seem to be far more segregated than I would expect them to be. For instance, it seems like commercial photography is founded on fairly strict rules about exposure and composition. Art seems to be free of such strict limitations and encourages experimentation.

The rules that govern art and commerce are different not because they're segregated [which would seem to imply that there's a third party responsible for drawing a line between the two], but because their fundamental goals are opposite in nature: Those who function in the business world seek to acquire human "creativity" as a concrete resource to inflate their personal wealth. Those who function in the art world seek to inflate their creativity abilities for reasons abstract in nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cash_

In reality respected commercial photographers do come up with the concepts and //are the primary creative director of their own shoots//

I think I'm guilty of being a little unclear here. I know the two intersect. To certain photographers, they intersect a lot. I'm just a bit shocked on the lack of discussion related more to 'art photography' on this board. This is especially apparent in the "rate the photo above you" threads. There just seems to be very little discussion related to more abstract concepts that I would relate to 'art.' And when I say art, I do relate it to the contemporary and historical ideas of 'high art.' That being something that exists for its own sake. I don't think I'm capable of defining art any further, for I lack a level of eloquence.

I suppose I do sound a bit critical of commercial photography. The reality is that I'm simply unaware of much of it. I go to a university that is primarily film-based (many film classes, 1 digital class) so almost all of my education is skewed towards 'high-art' photography. I made this topic basically because I saw little to no discussion of high-art photographers around these parts, and would certainly participate more if I saw more. It may not happen, but a girl can dream.

Oh, and I cited those specific photographers because I thought they were significant. The art-world is in a strange place right now. People are searching for significance in artworks so they are quick to attribute great amounts of money to works because they either seem important, or they want them to seem important. Damien Hirst has made a killing off of this market, and I think he knows its a bunch of bs (which makes him one of the most interesting contemporary artists, ironically enough.) In reality, I don't particularly like Sherman post-film stills and am quite neutral towards Gursky, but Twilight and Hover-era Crewdson is some of my favorite work ever. I probably should have cited Cartier-Bresson or Robert Frank. Their influence seems much more...absolute.

I'm just a bit shocked on the lack of discussion related more to 'art photography' on this board.

The reality is that most "photographers" do not associate with the fine arts because they are not engaging with that aspect of photography. Fine art is a purposefully inaccessible. Once you spend more time in your art program I think you'll realize how and why. Since this is a discussion apart from what I think you're trying to discover, I'll hold off on word-vomiting about why I believe it to be true.

Quote:

I suppose I do sound a bit critical of commercial photography. The reality is that I'm simply unaware of much of it.

This is absolutely normal. I was critical of commercial photography as well, but I learned this feeling was due to a limited view that saw commercial photography as portrait studios and product photography.

Quote:

I made this topic basically because I saw little to no discussion of high-art photographers around these parts, and would certainly participate more if I saw more.

****, I'd love it too - but I've gone through college before and don't miss that sort of discussion yet. Here's why: dissecting other artists is an extremely important means of learning visual language. However, there is a point when critique becomes masturbatory, and at this point you must begin creating your own work rather than respond to others'. It's a balance, and as an artist you're required to travel back and forth.

And just so you know where I'm coming from... my desire for conversation = epistemological discussion about aesthetics, the function of artists in society, the questionable value of abstract communication, the revolving aesthetic preferences of humans, and the process we indivudally use to capture truth. I do not believe these questions can be presently answered via the study of other artists' work.

Quote:

Damien Hirst has made a killing off of this market, and I think he knows its a bunch of bs

****, I'd love it too - but I've gone through college before and don't miss that sort of discussion yet. Here's why: dissecting other artists is an extremely important means of learning visual language. However, there is a point when critique becomes masturbatory, and at this point you must begin creating your own work rather than respond to others'. It's a balance, and as an artist you're required to travel back and forth.

And just so you know where I'm coming from... my desire for conversation = epistemological discussion about aesthetics, the function of artists in society, the questionable value of abstract communication, the revolving aesthetic preferences of humans, and the process we indivudally use to capture truth. I do not believe these questions can be presently answered via the study of other artists' work.

Well, the good thing is that I do have a healthy amount of creation going on with my studying of other artists. And I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm still a student (obviously) so much of my experience with art in general is still very recent. I came in to this school with very modernist views. I had a very absolute idea about what art was and should be, and now that I'm discovering and really enjoying post-modernist work, my ideals have been shaken up a lot. I also happen to be a philosophy minor, so I do have some ability to dissect and analyze. Still, it seems like I'm at the point where the more I learn, the more of an art-oriented existential confusion has been setting in. Maybe it's this sort of elitism you've been hinting at thats getting to me.

I recently took an aesthetics class and, while I enjoyed it, it did little to provide any sort of answer to what art is and how to find value in it. This, mixed with Contemporary Art next semester, really messed with me. Its still all very exciting at this point though, so I'm not in too much of a hurry to make decisions. I just hope it doesn't end up backfiring on me with some bad habits.

Also, I do dislike Koons' work (except for the flower puppy ), but I almost get the feeling he believes in his own work. With Hirst, some of his stuff is interesting (like 'A Thousand Years') but I see a lot of him playing with the critics. 'For the Love of God' is a perfect example. Also, his spin paintings, where he's basically selling the title. Hirst just seems to have a little more self-awareness in his works, at least in my eyes. They seem a lot more self-referential, like he knows exactly what the works mean in a broader, more meta sense.

[quote=Downfall08;73590451] Still, it seems like I'm at the point where the more I learn, the more of an art-oriented existential confusion has been setting in. Maybe it's this sort of elitism you've been hinting at thats getting to me.[quote]

Opinion: art of today has been built up as a response to a response and ad infinitum; people without formal education thus do not have the tools to understand the narrative of the work. It seems traditional aesthetics has been thrown out the window to make room for more responses, creating an aura of inaccessibility. Going to an artshow is often like going to a gathering of strangers: everyone is making contextual jokes to one another that you don't understand because you "weren't there". AND they don't often engage you in their conversation.

Quote:

I recently took an aesthetics class and, while I enjoyed it, it did little to provide any sort of answer to what art is and how to find value in it. This, mixed with Contemporary Art next semester, really messed with me.

Philosophy courses seem to often use a subject as a springboard to discuss all the theories that have existed and their historical context but not the possible importance of aesthetics as a part of human culture. I took "the aesthetics of art", excited to discuss that topic, and the closest we got to it were the philosophy kids arguing DuChamp's Fountain wasn't a legitimate artwork. WHAT THE ****?

How did the course on modern/contemporary art "mess with you"?

Quote:

Its still all very exciting at this point though, so I'm not in too much of a hurry to make decisions. I just hope it doesn't end up backfiring on me with some bad habits.

Bad habits? What do you mean?

Quote:

Also, I do dislike Koons' work (except for the flower puppy ), but I almost get the feeling he believes in his own work. Hirst just seems to have a little more self-awareness in his works, at least in my eyes. They seem a lot more self-referential, like he knows exactly what the works mean in a broader, more meta sense.

Are "self-awareness" or "believing in one's own work" sufficient for liking someone's work? How exactly [or abstractly] do you determine if the artist has met these conditions having only their artworks to work from?

PS: If you like art history and philosophy, come to the dark side and begin studying soci/psychology as well. If you want something to get your brain wet, sit in on an abnormal, cognitive, or behavioral psychology course. I think you'll like them. Also, sociological survey courses interweave nicely with art history; you might want to take a look at those as well. I realize you've got your own plans, but I think you'll benefit from taking these suggestions into consideration. The perspective offered is "the human masses" and "the human brain"... both are super useful in understanding artists(anyone)

It just seems like different worlds sometimes. Im working on my BFA in photography at a fairly respected school (not RISD or Yale or anything) and we have 1 digital photography class. The rest are film-based. The difference in attitudes is just striking sometimes, and what a good image is seems incredibly different.

I can somewhat allign myself with you, though I am only done with the first quarter of my second year I also realize that there is a big difference between the 'art' photographers of my school compared with the 'commerical' photographers at CCAD down the street. I know quite a few friends over at CCAD and the only difference I notice between the two is that the photographers at my school are more in tune with their OWN emotions and feelings about a particular work while those across the street are aligned more with the social interpretation and acceptance of their work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by therealmr

I guess we should admit that it's hard to tell a works' true value from anything other than an elevated historical context.

And even with a historical or social context clearly visible within the piece it doesnt mean that is the sole or even the prominent one of many ideas within a work. It's not like we all value art the same; and our personal associations with the figures in the frame are skewed from person to person and thus the price is skewed sometimes. I think its when the piece takes on a meaning from outside of its frame that it becomes an outrageously expensive piece. Atleast that seems like the only logical reason for why such simplistic photographs are selling for millions of dollars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by therealmr

This is true, and is worth re-quoting to re-emphasize.

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downfall08

I don't think I'm capable of defining art any further, for I lack a level of eloquence.

As do I, I feel like that is the most important part of the learning in the kind of schools that we are enrolled in. Unfortunately I dont feel like Im learning to express my thoughts aswell as I could be in class; and I wish there were more people on this board willing to delve into the emotional and thought process of a photograph. Im glad that you are considering being more active here, I would certainly discuss more with you if you contributed to the wdys, as im sure anyone in this thread would aswell when they have the time for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downfall08

I also happen to be a philosophy minor, so I do have some ability to dissect and analyze. Still, it seems like I'm at the point where the more I learn, the more of an art-oriented existential confusion has been setting in. Maybe it's this sort of elitism you've been hinting at thats getting to me.

I think that elitism is going to come with anything that you are passionate about and you have good reason to feel that way. Youre dedicating alot of your life to something, its only natural to feel like youre gradually gaining control of it and that

Quote:

Originally Posted by therealmr

Opinion: art of today has been built up as a response to a response and ad infinitum; people without formal education thus do not have the tools to understand the narrative of the work. It seems traditional aesthetics has been thrown out the window to make room for more responses, creating an aura of inaccessibility. Going to an artshow is often like going to a gathering of strangers: everyone is making contextual jokes to one another that you don't understand because you "weren't there". AND they don't often engage you in their conversation.

It seems like the fine art world is nothing more than an inside joke in alot of respects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by therealmr

and the closest we got to it were the philosophy kids arguing DuChamp's Fountain wasn't a legitimate artwork. WHAT THE ****?

This made me laugh because thats pretty much what happened in my art survey class, the immediate class for any and all osu art students. The lecturer showed us several slides of monet, bresson, kooning, etc and when we got to the fountain nobody could say anything. We had been so focused on the aesthetics an artist puts into a work and their meaning that we forgot about inherent beauty of an object. And since it we couldnt extrapolate a meaning from the piece the class couldnt accept it as artwork. Though I think photographers can accept readymades more easily because our photographs in a sense are readymades as we take reality (atleast, bresson steiglitz and adams do) and put it out of context and leave it open to interpretation.

This might just be me, as I can appreciate where DuChamp is coming from with "The Fountain" because it is an aesthetically pleasing object.Hypothetically, I would have photographed that fountain and presented it as art if I had the same feelings about the fountain that DuChamp had... Hopefully this makes sense.

Philosophy courses seem to often use a subject as a springboard to discuss all the theories that have existed and their historical context but not the possible importance of aesthetics as a part of human culture. I took "the aesthetics of art", excited to discuss that topic, and the closest we got to it were the philosophy kids arguing DuChamp's Fountain wasn't a legitimate artwork. WHAT THE ****?

How did the course on modern/contemporary art "mess with you"?

We also had lengthy discussions about Fountain, but probably the most interesting stuff we talked about had to do with interpretation, some being for Danto and some being against. As far as the importance to human culture, the first thing we read was a writing by Tolstoy that had a lot to do with how much artists matter in a culture. I think since industrialization, the importance of the artist extends far beyond making things that are pretty. There was another article we read in contemporary art about how art has really taken the place of philosophy, since at a certain level language fails. I really wish I would have kept that one. It was far too technical for me to remember from one read-through.

As far as contemporary messing with me, it was a lot to take in, and it was much different hearing about art from a philosophy professor and then an art historian. The philosophy professor was much more cynical about much of the contemporary conceptual art and was strongly against interpretation. The art history professor just talked about it in such a sensitive way, and at some point broke down into tears discussing the artists who made work about AIDS. It just got me confused all over again. Its hard when you like a work that you may not agree with philosophically, and vice-versa.

I think those are some of the bad habits I don't want. Thinking about it too much, losing a form of expression and sensitivity in my work, and trying too hard.

Quote:

Are "self-awareness" or "believing in one's own work" sufficient for liking someone's work? How exactly [or abstractly] do you determine if the artist has met these conditions having only their artworks to work from?

I don't think those are the only qualifications, and they may not even be important in a lot of works, but in the realm of what they are both attempting to do and the kind of art they are making, I do think they are important. And in the current climate, the artist is something that is sold just as much, if not more than, the artwork itself, so its hard to detach artists from their work. I'm not saying I agree with it but a lot of things are taken into account, like the concept, the intention, the artist, the way it relates to history, etc. For instance, 'For the Love of God' is really just a diamond encrusted skull, but if you take into account Hirst's previous works, the era in which it is created, and what he's trying to accomplish, it is successful (in my eyes). But I still don't particularly like it, which is my right...dammit!

And this is where the confusion sets in. Where does the importance of aesthetic value play in here, and where does the concept play in? Should one be valued over the other? To determine that, we need to define art, and I don't think that's been done to a degree I can fully support. Art simply is what it is at the moment, and it was something different a century ago.

>>> To determine the importance of , we need to define art :. Art simply is what it is at the moment, and it was something different a century ago.

Art's existence is tied to ours, and since we are continually changing, so art continually changes. Art of "today" appears different compared to "historical" examples, but they still feel connected in a way unrelated to appearance. Perhaps this is what you're describing as "self-awareness"?

>>> For instance, 'For the Love of God' is really just a diamond encrusted skull, but if you take into account Hirst's previous works, the era in which it is created, and what he's trying to accomplish, it is successful (in my eyes).

So you think the piece is contextually pleasing? I have a feeling any successful piece would have to be at one time or another =) A diamond encrusted skull is the Transformers III of the fine art world. And yet at the same time, each seems like a very accurate and honest representation of the era in which it was made. Do you agree or disagree that each are contextually pleasing? How would you determine the value of each?

>>> I think since industrialization, the importance of the artist extends far beyond making things that are pretty.

Do you think the classical works of painters pre ~1800 were primarily made to be pretty? What about artwork in cultures that experienced colonization rather than industrialization?

>>> Its hard when you like a work that you may not agree with philosophically, and vice-versa.

Art's existence is tied to ours, and since we are continually changing, so art continually changes. Art of "today" appears different compared to "historical" examples, but they still feel connected in a way unrelated to appearance. Perhaps this is what you're describing as "self-awareness"?

I was really using self-awareness in the more individual sense, as in the artists connection to the art scene of the time. This is what I mean by being self-referential. The art created today has more to do with the art world than the outside world. I think this relates to the point you brought up about inside jokes. Its kinda like Duane Michals' "Sydney Sherman" (sp?), except in a less humorous way.

Quote:

So you think the piece is contextually pleasing? I have a feeling any successful piece would have to be at one time or another =) A diamond encrusted skull is the Transformers III of the fine art world. And yet at the same time, each seems like a very accurate and honest representation of the era in which it was made. Do you agree or disagree that each are contextually pleasing? How would you determine the value of each?

I do think they are contextually pleasing, but its hard to determine value from that. My aesthetics teacher published a paper that analyzed Danto and backed up his theory with more specific analysis of how particular artworks relate to their sub-genre. The paper basically said that an artwork is effective if it fits into the standards of the sub-genre it was intended to fit into. The problem is, how does one determine if it effectively fits into the sub-genre? You can't determine this in a philosophically pleasing manner, so its left up to the critics and the cultural evaluation of works to determine value.

All that, to me, means there's a point where aesthetics breaks down in its evaluation of art. And thank God, really. Art isn't a science. I cringe at the mention of any sort of absolutes in relation to art. While I appreciate Ad Reinhardt, I'm glad it wasn't the end of painting.

Quote:

Do you think the classical works of painters pre ~1800 were primarily made to be pretty? What about artwork in cultures that experienced colonization rather than industrialization?

The prettiness was always an underlying factor, and the representational responsibilities of artists didn't fade until later. While they may not have thought it was meant to be pretty, it certainly was based on that.

And I'd say the major artists came from industrialized nations or were heavily influenced by those from industrialized nations.

(Disclaimer: My understanding of pre-industrialized art is poor. I may be way off base here)

Abstract Expressionism. Or at least the sort of rhetoric that went along with it. Preaching the necessity to flatten the canvas and "purity of medium." I find the work aesthetically pleasing but its not the be-all end-all to me.

Quote:

What do you mean by "trying too hard", "thinking about it too much"? I think I know, but I'm more interested in hearing how you explain it.

For me, photography has always given me a bit of a trance, at least when I'm doing it right. It's not something I want to think about consciously. I've heard a lot of talk about pre-visualization. Sometimes that works, but generally it leads to disappointment. There should always be a level of connection with what I'm photographing, and I can lose that if I think too much.